USPTO serial 76006890
DYNAMIC INFINITY AMERICAN FUND
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- STRASER, RICHARD
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
What this means
These status codes mean the trademark application is abandoned and no longer pending. Common reasons include missing an Office Action response (600), filing without a valid basis (602), express abandonment by the applicant (604), or failure to respond to an examiner's inquiry (618). Revival may be possible in limited circumstances. If abandonment was unintentional, consult counsel about a petition to revive. Otherwise file a new application if protection is still needed.
Need help with DYNAMIC INFINITY AMERICAN FUND?
If you own this trademark, we can monitor new filings and help with USPTO deadlines. If you do not, we can file a new U.S. application.
Current trademark owner
Monitor this mark, or talk with CopyMark about this registration.
Not the owner?
File a new U.S. trademark application, or speak with our attorneys.
Owner
Toronto, Ontario, CA
Toronto, Ontario, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Midge M. Hyman
MIDGE M HYMAN COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, PC1133 AVE OF THE AMERICAS,NEW YORK, NY 10036-6799UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 036 | MANAGING MUTUAL FUNDS | ACTIVE | — |
Related trademarks
CopyMark links this record to cited §2(d) serials, the owner's other marks, Nice classes, similar mark names, and recently changed USPTO applications.
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 8, 2008 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - FAILURE TO RESPOND | The trademark application was abandoned because a required response or document was not filed by the deadline — usually a missed Office Action response. The application is dead unless a petition to revive is granted within a limited time. |
| Oct 8, 2008 | ABN2 | ABANDONMENT - FAILURE TO RESPOND OR LATE RESPONSE | The trademark application was abandoned because a required response or document was not filed by the deadline — usually a missed Office Action response. The application is dead unless a petition to revive is granted within a limited time. |
| Mar 12, 2008 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 11, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 10, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 10, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 10, 2007 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 9, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 8, 2007 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 16, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 16, 2007 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Mar 1, 2007 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 1, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 27, 2007 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Jan 27, 2007 | COAR | TEAS CHANGE OF OWNER ADDRESS RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 31, 2006 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 30, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 30, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 17, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 17, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 16, 2006 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 16, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 16, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 15, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 15, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 28, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 28, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 7, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 7, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 7, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 4, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 4, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 10, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 10, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 6, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 6, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 6, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 9, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 9, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 13, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 28, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Apr 4, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 11, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 11, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Sep 19, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 18, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 16, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 7, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 14, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 19, 2000 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED | A non-final Office Action means the USPTO examining attorney has raised at least one issue with your trademark application but has not made a final decision. You usually have three months to respond with arguments, amendments, or evidence. Missing the deadline can abandon the application. |
| Aug 31, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 29, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |